Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein trav­els across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Britain, Greece, and Australia to witness the reality of disaster capitalism. He discovers how companies such as G4S, Serco, and Halliburton cash in on or­ganized misery in a hidden world of privatized detention centers, militarized private security, aid profiteering, and destructive mining.

Disaster has become big business. Talking to immigrants stuck in limbo in Britain or visiting immigration centers in America, Loewenstein maps the secret networks formed to help cor­porations bleed what profits they can from economic crisis. He debates with Western contractors in Afghanistan, meets the locals in post-earthquake Haiti, and in Greece finds a country at the mercy of vulture profiteers. In Papua New Guinea, he sees a local commu­nity forced to rebel against predatory resource companies and NGOs.

What emerges through Loewenstein’s re­porting is a dark history of multinational corpo­rations that, with the aid of media and political elites, have grown more powerful than national governments. In the twenty-first century, the vulnerable have become the world’s most valu­able commodity. Disaster Capitalism is published by Verso in 2015 and in paperback in January 2017.

Vulture capitalism has seen the corporation become more powerful than the state, and yet its work is often done by stealth, supported by political and media elites. The result is privatised wars and outsourced detention centres, mining companies pillaging precious land in developing countries and struggling nations invaded by NGOs and the corporate dollar.
Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea and across Australia to witness the reality of this largely hidden world of privatised detention centres, outsourced aid, destructive resource wars and militarized private security. Who is involved and why? Can it be stopped? What are the alternatives in a globalised world? Profits of Doom, published in 2013 and released in an updated edition in 2014, challenges the fundamentals of our unsustainable way of life and the money-making imperatives driving it. It is released in an updated edition in 2014.

Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?
We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.
Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.
Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sake, published in 2013, encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.

After Zionism, published in 2012 and 2013 with co-editor Ahmed Moor, brings together some of the world s leading thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution.
Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonization of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably.
This daring and timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Antony Loewenstein, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ahmed Moor, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.

The 2008 financial crisis opened the door for a bold, progressive social movement. But despite widespread revulsion at economic inequity and political opportunism, after the crash very little has changed.
Has the Left failed? What agenda should progressives pursue? And what alternatives do they dare to imagine?
Left Turn, published by Melbourne University Press in 2012 and co-edited with Jeff Sparrow, is aimed at the many Australians disillusioned with the political process. It includes passionate and challenging contributions by a diverse range of writers, thinkers and politicians, from Larissa Berendht and Christos Tsiolkas to Guy Rundle and Lee Rhiannon. These essays offer perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream. They offer possibilities for resistance and for a renewed struggle for change.

The Blogging Revolution, released by Melbourne University Press in 2008, is a colourful and revelatory account of bloggers around the globe why live and write under repressive regimes - many of them risking their lives in doing so.
Antony Loewenstein's travels take him to private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, to the homes of Cuban dissidents and into newspaper offices in Beijing, where he discovers the ways in which the internet is threatening the ruld of governments.
Through first-hand investigations, he reveals the complicity of Western multinationals in assisting the restriction of information in these countries and how bloggers are leading the charge for change.
The blogging revolution is a superb examination about the nature of repression in the twenty-first century and the power of brave individuals to overcome it.
It was released in an updated edition in 2011, post the Arab revolutions, and an updated Indian print version in 2011.

Hypocrisy? Aiding a country that was busy defending itself from the constant attacks of its neighbors, and Britian's policies towards preventing the spread of nuclear weapons 40 years later is hypocritical?

I would assume Germany preventing antisemitism today could be seen as hypocritical in the same light via its behavior 70 years ago.

I'm sure that has not been lost in the arab world either.

Addamo

Yes that's right Captain, Hypocrisy. Big time.

Plain and simple. Israel was able to defend itself without nukes. has never needed them but got them illegally.

Birtain and the US have proved themselves to be a bunch of idiots handing out invitations to the nuclear weans club like some juvenile at a party handing out gifts to his favorite friends. India was unanimously condemned by the UNSC in 1998 for doing so, yet psychopath extraordinaire Bolton not only stated last week that it was legal in hindsight (because Iran was not a signatory of the NPT) but Bush is going back to Congress to persuade them to bend the rules to allow India to continue to develop more nukes.

Pakistan (which has become a Wallmart to states wishing to buy nuclear hardware components) did the same and Cheney etc all kept this from Congress because he wanted a deal to sell f-16 fighters to be approved (his wife is after all, on the board of Lockheed Martin).

Now we have Israel, a non signatory to the NPT, pushing the US to bomb a country that is a signatory to the NPT. are you out of your frigging mind Captain? You stuck in some time warp where up is down an clocks run in reverse or something?

Your reference to Germany is another of your childish endeavors to try and confuse matters. Germany has expressed regret over the holocaust and is making amends today. In fact it's holocaust denial laws are over-reaching in that regard. Has Britain expressed regret for assisting Israel obtain nukes? Has it expressed regret that Israel has nukes or for that matter, or even publicly acknowledge that Israel has them? Did any country admonish Israel for jailing Mordecai Vanunu, when he shed light on Israel’s illegal activity?

You a such a fruitcake sometimes Captain. Take Ant’s advice and grow up.

Chris

Leave your petty insults at home. You have not shown how Britian and Germany's about face can be considered hypocritical.

Did any country admonish Israel for trying and jailing a citizen who revealed state secrets? Do you want those countries to be guilty of hypocrisy?

I did not realize that you would be confused by a simple analogy. But I am not surprised at your protest.

Why did you address me as captain? This is an indication that you do not read these posts with the aim of understanding what is written. It seems more that this is more a case of knee-jerk reaction when the red light catches your eye.

Addamo

Read before you reply Chris,

Sorry for addressing you as Captain. Yo and he seem to be well and truly on message with one another. I was repsonsing to the post and rebutted your fragile argument.

I said that Germany had indeed demonstrated a desire to attone for their past. Britain has nto done anything to those ends as far as assiting Israel developing nukes.

Fact 1 – it has not said sorry
Fact 2 – it has not suggested that Israel having nukes is innapropriate
Fact 3 – it has not even aknowledge that Israel has nuke

QED.

So by shutting up about Mordecai Vanunu, you are suggesting that the rest of the world were acting appropriately? You initially argued that in spite of Britain's past, it has now seen the light by putting pressure on Iran. You don't seem a massive contradiction here? it is you that is confused. Well dome Chris. You've dug yourslef another hole.

You seem to be making a habbit of it.

Chris

I do not adress you as any other no matter how much in lock step you appear with others. It is seems systematic with your apparently automatic postings whenever certain ideas come up.

There is no reason for Britian to apologize for its actions regarding an ally 40 years ago. Nor is it required to reveal every secret it knows.

The rest of the world? Or the Governments of most of the countries on earth regarding the states prosecution of a citizen who reveal state secrets. I would think that most coutries applauded the fact that he did not recieve the death penalty. Whatever happened to the Iraqis who returned to Saddam's Iraq after revealing state secrets?

Addamo

You are right Chris,

It was a mistake and rud eof me not to address you by your own name. My appolgies.

I so not suggest that Birtain should applogise, but the hypocrisy of it's new found and highly selctive morality with regard to nuclear proliferation does nothgn for Birtains credibility.

It is also true that Vannunu took a risk exposing state secrets. Howver, let's be honest here. His cause was hardly championed by the rest of the world Not like say, Curveball, who was held up as a star witness for the pro Iraq hawks in Washington.

Chris

Again, what is new found? There is evidence that Britian wished to help nuclear arm all of its allies until the day it was discovered that Iran wanted the bomb? Perhaps, right after it helped israel, it decided that it probably shouldn't have, but could not announce a change in heart?

This shot gun attempt to charge Britian with hypocrisy is ridiculous.

I don't understand your comment regarding Vannunu.

Addamo

The criticism is probably more approrpiately directed at the US, but Britain's hypocrisy is what it is. In regard to the lies it helped perpetuate to create a case for the Iraq war, and it's willingness to remain silent about the nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan (eben though it was one of the countries on the UNSC that voted unanimously to concem India in 1998).

Chris

Such a weak case is not worth discussing.

edward squire

Chris Mar 10th, 2006 at 1:26 am

Hypocrisy? Aiding a country that was busy defending itself

Atomic bombs are never, ever for "defence". Their one and only specified purpose is mass murder.

Addamo

Weak case? That's Chris speak for I can't think of anything to say rigt now so I'll pretend I'm way to intelligent for this debate.

Yes if I were you I'd do the same thing. Learn to pick your battles.

Chris

Your talent for making things up in a reasonable fashion becomes weaker by the day. Now you're just making ridiculous statements.

Squire, the purpose of nuclear weapons in this day and age is deterence.

Antony Loewenstein

"the purpose of nuclear weapons in this day and age is deterence."
Ever considered that Iran may be thinking the same way?
Even Hitchens seems to think so:http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/

Addamo

They are only deterents when we have them. They are not when our enemies have them, right Chris?

Same thing goes for anit-aircraft weapons. I always thought it was bizarre how ISrael get's away with complaining to the world about Syria and Iran have Russian anti-aricraft systems. It seems it is a crime is the mind of Israel's leadership for othre countries ot defend themselves.

Addamo

"Your talent for making things up in a reasonable fashion becomes weaker by the day. Now you’re just making ridiculous statements."

Chirs,

The major consensus here is against you and you still maintain that I am the one making rediculous statements. You got to put me in touch with your pharmazist one day.

"this is a dangerous deviation to pretend that the Iranian president is an anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic personality since president Ahmadinejad, in fact, restated what the late founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Khomeini had frequently stated, that is, Zionism is different from Judaism and while the Zionist state of Israel must be disintegrated, the Jewish communities world wide and the religion of Judaism must be respected."

Now Bush is left explaining a foreign poliocy he never even thought of. My word, we do live ininteresting times don't we? I can't wait for the blowhard over at Tim Blair to start falling on their swords.

edward squire

Chris Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:26 am

Squire, the purpose of nuclear weapons in this day and age is deterence.

By means of what threat? Yes, that's right: mass murder.

Chris

Yes, indeed. The threat is such. But the Iranians are do not seem interested in deterence, just the mass murder stuff.

Addamo

Actually what is seems is that the Iranians just want to be left alone.

edward squire

Chris Mar 10th, 2006 at 4:03 pm

But the Iranians are do not seem interested in deterence, just the mass murder stuff.

If anything, the Iranians seem to be obsessed with deterence, not with mass murder per se. Look to the history of the Persian-Shia Muslims for the reason why. These are no imagined mythical stories that drives some. The Shia Muslims live their 1,000 history of persecution.

Chris

Outside of the 1000 year history, their recent proclamations suggest they are concerned only with the mass murder part, at this point in history.

Who knows what their concerns will be at the next.

Addamo

“this is a dangerous deviation to pretend that the Iranian president is an anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic personality since president Ahmadinejad, in fact, restated what the late founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Khomeini had frequently stated, that is, Zionism is different from Judaism and while the Zionist state of Israel must be disintegrated, the Jewish communities world wide and the religion of Judaism must be respected.”